DALITS

Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries define Dalit is a member of the lowest caste in South Asia. But that is not it. The word “Dalit” is derived from Sanskrit and translated as “broken, torn, downtrodden, crushed, destroyed”, which is also similar to the Hebrew term dal and has similar significance in its meaning.[3] They are also identified as Scheduled-Castes (SC), outcastes, or avarnas since they lie outside of the four Hindu castes, moreover, Hindu dharma brands them in Hindu religion as “non-humans.”[4] Gandhi called the untouchables as Harijans which means “children of God – Hari”, but Dalits perceived and rejected the expression of Gandhi as it was more patronizing and contrasting with their real-life experience.[5]

Overall, in India, nearly one out of five Indians is a Dalit.[6] Though SCs are called as ex-untouchables by mainstream media, the inhuman untouchable practice is found and exists in ninety-nine forms at 1,589 Gujarat villages, a study in 2009 shows.[7] This picture in Gujarat is a preview of existing caste atrocities on Dalits of all India. So calling the SCs as ex-untouchables is appealing irrelevant even today since their inhuman treatments from society are alive and active as ever before.

In 1917, Ambedkar returned to Baroda to pay back his grant to Maharaja by serving as a military secretary, but he was shocked at the welcome he received from his colleagues as well as his subordinates.[8] He was ill-treated as a polluted and unclean person though he had two doctorates from the world’s two prestigious institutions, he was not given a place to rent in Parsi hotels either because he was a Dalit, which made him return to Bombay.[9] A century later, India still behaves in a similar fashion with openly advertised property tags such as “Brahmins Only” and “Vegetarians Only.”[10] There is no marketing space is witnessing of “Dalits only” and “Non-vegetarians Only” labels. Moreover, 70 percent of Dalits own no land and 90 percent of workers employed by the Government of India as street sweepers, manual scavengers and clean toilets are the Scheduled-Castes, the largest employer among them all is the Indian Railways.[11]

DALIT CHRISTIANS

At least 70 percent of Christians in India are of Scheduled-Caste origin, their religious conversion is linked to many social, cultural, economic, political, and religious factors.[12] Though upper-caste Hindu organizations claim that Dalits and tribals are in the Hindu framework, they never gave much attention to improve the socio-economic status of the lowest-caste Hindus.[13]

According to Christian tenets, caste system practice has no origin and non-existent in the Bible. The caste ideology of showing a Hindu God as its inventor contradicts with the Biblical God. The 1991 Mandal Commission Report recognizes the caste practice even among the Indian Christians, and witnesses Scheduled-Caste Christians’ unchanged poverty existence as well as the unchanged state of caste discrimination victims.[14] In India, mostly surnames are caste titles and the caste names are the last names. For example, keeping high-caste or Savarna surnames such as Sharma, Joshi, Thakur, Reddy hinders and creates fear among the lowest-caste Christians, especially the untouchable Christians who previously as Hindus never allowed to be present among Savarna Hindus. On the other hand, former Hindu oppressors most likely do not change their stand against ex-untouchable Hindus.

The exclusion of Dalit Christian from the Scheduled-Caste list is only adding more fuel to the existing socio-economic injustice fire. Initially, Dalit converts were called as Christians of Scheduled Caste Origin (CSCO) but later the Christian Dalit Liberation Movement in 1985 chose to categorize as “Dalit Christians” since the term “Dalit” gave them a dignifying identity.[15] Many proselytes chose Christianity over Hinduism as a ticket to the vehicle of the social ladder, and Smith calls it one of the main reasons for the conversion movements among tribal and Dalits of India.[16]

PRE-DALIT CHRISTIAN THEOLOGICAL ERA

In the late 1960s, the whole world was witnessing many people’s movements, and the Black Panther Party (BPP) is one among them, which was founded by two black college students Bobby Seale and Huey P. Newton to empower the oppressed African American communities.[17] Namdeo Dhasal and J.W. Pawar founded the Dalit Panther as a reaction to fight the mounting events of caste atrocities in 1972, which was inspired by the BPP.[18] There is an ongoing debate that Dalits converted to Christianity only to escape caste-hierarchical discrimination. Did all Scheduled-Caste Christians reach the socio-economic-political pinnacle? The Mandal Commission survey informs that the Dalit Christians are still part of socio-economic disparity, the Brahminical political class opposes and fears to include them under Scheduled-Caste’s reservation list which may catalyze the massive conversion of Dalits to Christianity.[19]

Indian churches influenced by Sanskritized rituals and Hindu philosophical ideas did not appeal to the Dalit Christians and felt alienized albeit they form the majority of the Christian population.[20] The traditions which are usually denied to an ex-untouchable Hindu were dominating the Church premises and Indian Christian theology. Assuming the Brahminical tradition is the tradition of the whole of India made Dalit Christians raise a question on understanding the traditional Indian culture. The various socio-cultural movements in the early 1980s certainly influenced the untouchable Christians, especially the Dalit political movements.[21]

DALIT CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

The birth of Dalit theology traced back to a paper presentation by Arvind P. Nirmal at United Theological College, Bangalore in 1981.[22] Initially, the lecture was labeled as “Towards a Shudra Theology” but Nirmal argued that it wasn’t a pan-Indian Christian ideology rather it represents unpopular Dalit experiences, sufferings, ambitions, and hope by a Dalit.[23] Later in his book, he published the speech as “Towards a Christian Dalit Theology.” Arvind expressed his wish of Dalit theology is a product only of the untouchables to counter the Indian Christian theology seasoned with Brahminic tradition.[24]

Adrian Bird claims M.M. Thomas as a liberation theologian who was pursuing a dynamic theological foundation to liberate the entire Indian society from class injustice, caste communalism, and human indignity.[25] Moreover, Adrian believes M.M. Thomas’ theological inputs paved a path for Dalit liberation theology. However, Nirmal calls that both the traditional Indian Christian theology and the contemporary third world theology are unsuccessful to address the majority Scheduled-Caste Christians’ struggle for liberation.

Nirmal calls Dalit theology as “a methodological exclusivism” away from Vedic Indian Christian theology, implies that the Triune God affirms and sides with the Dalits (the oppressed) and not with the non-Dalits (t­­he oppressors).[26] He was not opposing the non-SCs to involve and contribute to Dalit theology. However, the Dalit experience is unparalleled and unique, its depth of misery and pathos should inform Dalit theology, others can participate in it through empathy and sympathy.[27] Though Nirmal’s statement may sound arrogant, it may have truthful intentions. Mandal’s two notable opinions may support Nirmal’s view:

First, caste system is a great conditioner of the mind and leaves an indelible mark on a person’s social consciousness and cultural moves. Consequently, even after conversion, the ex-Hindus carried with them their deeply ingrained ideas of social hierarchy and stratification … non-Hindu minorities living in a predominantly Hindu India could not escape from its dominant social cultural influences. Thus, both from within and without, castes among non-Hindu communities receive continuous substance and stimulus.

Mandal Commision [28]

Nirmal uses the historical Dalit consciousness as a root in the Dalit Christian theology to affirm the identity of Scheduled-Castes.[29] He believed that Dalit consciousness helps to fulfill community consciousness and make the theology authentic. Also, it should be the epistemological starting point.

DALIT CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY MOTIFS

Nirmal entitles the exodus experience of Dalits is greater than the experience of the Israelites and uses Deuteronomy 26:5–12 as a model for developing Dalit theology.[30] This Deuteronomic creed affirms the identity by dealing with the subjects of ancestral roots and historical consciences. The liberation process in the Exodus is represented by ‘a mighty hand’, ‘an outstretched arm’, and by terror.

Nirmal condemns Hindu gods such as Ram who killed a Dalit in a story for performing rituals. He debates the promised savior to the Old Testament prophets was revealed in Jesus Christ is a Dalit God. In other words, “He is a servant God – a God who serves” and gospel authors identify Jesus Christ with the suffering servant of God (Isaiah 53.61), moreover, Jesus suffered as a Dalit who “encountered rejection, mockery, contempt, suffering, and finally, death” even though He is the Son of God and the Son of Man.[31] He was with marginalized people who are excluded from society and fought for their rights, on the cross He cried in an agony of God’s abandonment. “That feeling of being God-forsaken is at the heart of our Dalit experiences and Dalit consciousness in India”, Nirmal says.[32]

In Dalit Christology, it is impossible to separate the Dalit issues, its realization, embedded Dalit consciousness, and self-worth since “their full humanness” complete through Christ.[33] Nirmal believes that this newly received consciousness through Jesus can empower Dalit minds, a new sense of dignity. For the Dalits, the suffering is something they cannot separate with their life, they are powerless, possess no wealth and they are the punching bags of Indian society. Jesus as a Dalit became more meaningful and personal, seeing Christ is one among them suffering and received injustice death.

Nirmal calls out that Nazareth manifesto in the Lukan gospel emphasizes “the gospel Jesus brought was the gospel for Dalits and not for non-Dalits.”[34] He makes Jesus a true Dalit deity, which helps the Dalit Christian feel associated with Brahminical Indian theology. Previously the Vedic philosophies kept Dalits as aliens by not allowed inside the temple and so did the traditional Indian Christian theology, but the only difference is Dalit Christians were inside the church.

REVIEW

So far, we saw only A.P. Nirmal’s initiation and theology. One of the things bothers me why he said Dalit theology is only for Dalit theologians not for non-Dalit theologians. It sounds like how Brahmins restricted Vedic study only for themselves for centuries. Probably in the 1980s, the national situation and Dalit movements may have pushed Nirmal to take that view. However, I think he would have changed his view if he is alive today and allowed non-Dalits to contribute to Dalit theology.

On the other hand, the Christian theologians’ negligence toward Dalit Christians is true to some extent and Nirmal’s claim on doing Dalit liberation theology necessitates it to fill the void in Indian churches. Even today, Christians are called with slur words ‘Rice Bags’ or ‘Rice Christians’ assuming all Indian Christians come from a Dalit background and activities like Ghar Wapsi (Back to Home) hinders and challenges Dalit Christians. Nirmal’s effort should be appreciated and there is a long way to go, for instance, Dalit Women are the most oppressed among Dalits and their issues need to be addressed too. Many faithful contemporary Dalit theologians are expanding this liberation genre, there is a divide among them too. I believe that doing theology by affirming scriptural authority is should be the prime aspect and context comes second.

CONCLUSION

Overall, caste-apartheid followed into the church was unfortunate and hard to miss it now. Many centuries of long-suffering of Dalits both inside and outside the church is real. A.P. Nirmal was attempted to address it by creating the Dalit Christian liberation theology which was influenced by the world and church movements. The main theme of Nirmal’s Dalit theology to create an identity and rightful place for Dalits both in church and society, he sowed the seed of Dalit Christian liberation theology and it became a tree and is growing.

Endnotes:

[1] “Crimes against Dalits Increased by 6 Percent between 2009 and 2018: Report,” The Hindu, September 11, 2020, sec. National, https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/report-flags-increase-in-crimes-against-dalits/article32584803.ece.

[2] Rowena Robinson, Margins of Faith: Dalit and Tribal Christianity in India, First edition (Los Angeles: Sage India, 2010), 51.

[3] John Parratt, “Recent Writing on Dalit Theology: A Bibliographical Essay,” International Review of Mission 83, no. 329 (April 1994): 329–37.

[4] Damir Pasic, “Caste Discrimination,” International Dalit Solidarity Network, accessed October 18, 2020, https://idsn.org/caste-discrimination/.

[5] Pasic.

[6] Pasic.

[7] Arundhati Roy, The Doctor and the Saint: Caste, Race, and Annihilation of Caste, the Debate Between B.R. Ambedkar and M.K. Gandhi (Haymarket Books, 2017), 145.

[8] Roy, 97.

[9] Roy, 97.

[10] “So the Term ‘Dalit’ Can’t Be Used But ‘Brahmin’ and 6,000 Other Caste Names Can,” The Wire, accessed October 18, 2020, https://thewire.in/caste/dalit-brahmin-caste-names.

[11] Roy, The Doctor and the Saint, 35.

[12] S.M. Michael, “Dalit Encounter with Christianity: Change and Continuity,” in Margins of Faith: Dalit and Tribal Christianity in India, ed. Rowena Robinson and Josepha Mariyanusa Kujura (Los Angeles: Sage India, 2010), 52.

[13] Michael, 53.

[14] Michael, 63.   

[15] L. Stanislaus, The Liberative Mission of the Church among Dalit Christians (Delhi: ISPCK, 1999), 44.

[16] Robinson, Margins of Faith, 52.

[17] Anand Teltumbde, Republic of Caste : Thinking Equality in the Time of Neoliberal Hindutva (Navayana, 2018), 130.

[18] Teltumbde, 130.

[19] Robinson, Margins of Faith, 63.

[20] Michael, “Dalit Encounter with Christianity: Change and Continuity,” 70.

[21] Robinson, Margins of Faith, 70.

[22] Sathianathan Clarke, Deenabandhu Manchala, and Philip Vinod Peacock, eds., Dalit Theology in the Twenty First Century: Discordant Voices, Discerning Pathways (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2010), 15.

[23] Arvind P. Nirmal, A Reader In Dalit Theology (Madras: Gurukal Lutheran Technological College And Research Institute, 1990), 58.

[24] Nirmal, 58-59.

[25] Adrian Bird, M.M. Thomas and Dalit Theology (BTESSC/SATHRI, 2008), 2.

[26] Kirsteen Kim, “India,” in An Introduction to Third World Theologies, ed. John Parratt (Cambridge, U.K. ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 61.

[27] Kim, 61.

[28] Michael, “Dalit Encounter with Christianity: Change and Continuity,” 63.

[29] Peniel Rajkumar, Dalit Theology and Dalit Liberation: Problems, Paradigms and Possibilities (Farnham, England ; Burlington, VT: Routledge, 2010), 49.

[30] Rajkumar, 49.

[31] Kim, “India,” 62.

[32] Nirmal, A Reader In Dalit Theology, 69.

[33] Rajkumar, Dalit Theology and Dalit Liberation, 51.

[34] Nirmal, A Reader In Dalit Theology, 227.

VARIOUS UNTOUCHABLE FACTORS AND A BIBLICAL SOLUTION

Firstly, Hindu sacred-texts clearly portray a tier system or a caste hierarchy among Hindus dividing them into four major sections Brahmin-Kshatriya-Vaishya-Shudra, and Dalits do not fit under any of this. In other words, Dalits are outcastes or avarnas who lie outside the Hindu’s hierarchical design. Moreover, Dalits are Hindus on the one hand, they are untouchables under the Hindu law on the other. One of the famous quotes of Dr. Ambedkar, “Though, I was born a Hindu, I solemnly assure you that I will not die as a Hindu” assures that Dalits are never going to receive an upgrade on their status-quo within Hinduism. Ambedkar strongly believed it and justice only possible outside Hinduism. He led many mass conversion rallies of urging his followers from Hinduism to Buddhism.

Secondly, the so-called Untouchables or Dalits who face untouchable treatments and discriminations are most-likely carry a low grade on their socio-economic status. Even though the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act 1989 (“SC/ST Act”) stands beside Dalits to receive justice, many are not aware of it. Still puts them in a vulnerable position since their daily income relies on caste-Hindus (who happened to be their oppressors). Their Meagre salary and uneducated background bring hesitation to fight against injustice. Dalits who live in rural areas and slums certainly need outside help. Without help, atrocities against Dalits leads many students like Rohith Vemula to end their own life. Elite castes mock the reservation system and its recipients rather than learning its reasons and the history behind it.

Thirdly, Indian Christians consist of believers who came largely from the Dalit background. Up to 70% of Indian Christians possess an untouchable backdrop. The question is that becoming Christians improved their status-quo? Some say “Yes”, their image in the society changed enormously. On the other hand, the Dalit liberation theology informs a different story that how Indian Christian theology is an adapted version of Hindu Brahminism and many converts’ socio-economic situation unchanged even after becoming Christians. Many Dalits face an unfairness inside Churches from caste-Hindu converts. Moreover, Dalit Christians lose the privilege of Indian Government reservation schemes upon Christian proselytization.

Finally, so far, being an untouchable within a Hindu or a Christian proselyte, behavior toward Dalits is not changed much. However, from a biblical perspective addressing human creation would shed a light on untouchable treatment. In Genesis 1:26-27, God created both men and women in his image in contrast to Hindu God’s imbalanced human creation. Though animals and humans were created on the same day, humans resemble God and power vested upon every man and woman with equal dignity and respect. When early humans sinned, God promised a savior in Genesis 3:15, became human, and died on the cross for all people. Churches as an agent of Jesus failed to address untouchability many times. However, when the Gospel seed is sown in human hearts, it eradicates hatred, indignity, and disrespect of barren land but creates an oasis of love, dignity, and respect among each other.

Overall, untouchability toward Dalits does exist among Hindus and Christian proselytes. However, only the gospel grace message of Jesus can transform human hearts and abolishes the unfair untouchable treatment on Dalits.

¹⁴ Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. ¹⁵ For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. ¹⁶ Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

I used to work as a software developer. My main task is to design and create software applications for clients. Sometimes I work alone or with a team based on the project size and the budget. Before releasing the software, we programmers send it to the quality control department. They sent back to us with a report and we programmers must fix the errors listed on the report. After fixing the bugs, we ask them to test it again and we get another testing report. Until unless it is not approved by the quality control team, we cannot release the application. Even after its release, many times we will get errors. So as a developer, our main task is to design, create, and fix the mistakes of software.

Earthly High Priests

The author of the Hebrews calls Jesus as a Great High Priest. Who are these high priests and what they do? The high priest office started with Aaron (Exodus 28-29) and God established it. As we all know that Aaron was the brot­­her of Moses. Then Eleazar, Aaron’s son, next Phinehas, Eleazar’s son, … then Eli, Ahimelech… the high priest position goes all the way to the New Testament. We can see Annas (Luke 3:2; John 18:13, 24; Acts 4:6), Caiaphas (Matt. 26:57; John 18:13), and Ananias (Acts 23:2; 24:1). There are three levels of priesthood. The highest level is hight priest, then priests, they assist the Hight priest, then Levites, they help the priests. In the Mosaic or Levitic institute, there is only one high priest.

The Most Holy Place

In the holy tent, or in the temple, there are two rooms. The first room is called a holy place and the second room is called holy of holies or the most holy place or the inner sanctorium. High priests do have specific tasks. People are not allowed inside the holy place, only priests and Levites were allowed. But only the high priest can enter into the holy of holies on the Day of Atonement once a year (Leviticus 16:1-25).

What is Atonement?

Atonement is an animal sacrifice ransomed the sinner from the death which the sinner deserved. The animal became the believer’s substitute and lost its life in order for the sinner to live. On the day of atonement, once a year, the high priest enters into the most holy place and sacrifices for the whole nation and for himself.

Mosaic High Priests vs Jesus the High Priest

What makes Jesus a Great high priest?

First of all, He passed or gone through the heavens, which reminds us that Jesus is seated at the right hand of God the Father (Hebrews 1:3). Not only that His high priest role united with his position as God’s unique son. High Priests who existed before they died, but He is a permanent, heavenly, and eternal High Priest.

Second, Jesus sympathizes with our weaknesses since he is fully human and tempted in every aspect, but never gave in for temptations and remained sinless. He experienced humanness without any compromise on his obedience (Hebrews 2:14-18). The readers of this book are familiar with abuses of High Priesthood in Jerusalem. Unlike them, Jesus is truly the Holy High Priest.

Next, we can approach God with confidence toward the throne of grace. Here the throne of grace implies the presence of God.  The ark of the covenant is symbolized as God’s throne in the Old Testament (2 Samuels 6:2; Psalms 80:1; 99:1; Is. 37:16). The ark was unapproachable, secluded in the most holy part of the temple, which even the high priest could approach only once a year. Hight Priests entered into the holy place by the means of the blood of goats and calves. In the next chapter Hebrews 5, it becomes very clear that Jesus entered the holy place of the presence of God by offering Himself as a sacrifice and shed His sinless blood. Other high priests have to sacrifice every day, but Jesus sacrificed once for all.

HIGH PRIEST OFFICE HOLDERS

Aaron (Exodus 28-29)
Eleazar (Numbers 3:4; Deuteronomy 10:6)
Phinehas (Joshua 22:13-32; Judges 20:28)
Eli (1 Samuel 1:9; 2:11)
Ahimelech (1 Samuel 21:1-2; 22:11)
Abiathar (2 Samuel 20:25; 1 Kings 2:26-27)
Zadok (1 Kings 2:35; 1 Chronicles 29:22)
Azariah (1 Kings 4:2)
Amariah (2 Chronicles 19:11)
Jehoiada (2 Kings 11:9-10, 15; 12:7, 9-10)
Azariah (2 Chronicles 26:20)
Uriah (2 Kings 16:10-16)
Hilkiah (2 Kings 22:10, 12, 14; 22:4, 8; 23:4)
Seraiah (2 Kings 25:18)
Joshua (Haggai 1:1, 12, 14; 2:2, 4; Ezra 3; Zechariah 3:6-7; 4:14; 6:9-15)
Eliashib (Nehemiah 3:1, 20)
Simon the Just (Sirach 50:1-21)
Onias III (1 Maccabees 12:7; 2 Maccabees 3:1)
Jason (2 Maccabees 4:7-10, 18-20; 4 Maccabees 4:16)
Menelaus (2 Maccabees 4:23-26)
Alcimus (1 Maccabees 7:9)
Jonathan Maccabee (1 Maccabees 10:20; 14:30)
Simon Maccabee (1 Maccabees 14:20, 23)
John Hyrcanus (1 Maccabees 16:23-24)
Annas (Luke 3:2; John 18:13, 24; Acts 4:6)
(Joseph) Caiaphas (Matthew 26:57; John 18:13)
Ananias (Acts 23:2; 24:1)

Takeaway

Sometimes, I wonder what if there is software, we install it only once, with no more errors and no future updates, a perfect application. In our lives, we are anxious and confused with uncertainty in our lives and the problems we are facing. For example, I have no clue about the current COVID-19 scenario, when will the life back to normal and I never cracked the code of developing perfect software either. We are always looking for a perfect solution.

But the truth is we know that we have the high priest Jesus, who is the perfect, sinless, heavenly and compassionate, most importantly, he seated beside the throne of God and mediates and prays to His Father for us. In that confidence, we can approach God anytime and enjoy Him amidst our weaknesses, disobedience, anxieties, failures, and various needs.

In the Old Testament, believers were not allowed to enter the holy place. But We Christians have the privilege to approach God anytime through Jesus. Christ has opened full access to all his followers (Hebrews 10:19-20).

Once again, we have the eternal, holy, and compassionate High Priest Jesus, who is also God’s lamb. God bless you all, Amen!

³ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, ⁴ even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love ⁵ he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, ⁶ to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.

Did God create us so that He can love us? First of all, our God is Triune God. Three persons: God, Son, and Spirit but one God. Love was not a novice act for Him. God is eternal and so do their love among each other within the trinity. God was not needy and was looking for love. But God created us for His glory and adopted us His Children, so that we glorify God, and fully to enjoy him forever (Westminster Catechism Question 1).

Adoption

In verse 5, God the Father chosen or predestined to adopt us to become His sons and daughters. The Greek term υἱοθεσία (huiothesia) was originally a legal technical term for adoption as a son with full rights of inheritance. Paul uses the same term to denote the new relationship status. If we and God have a Facebook account, our relationship is updated as His child and as children in His. God has chosen us in love for love (1 John 3:1). Although in the ancient world, only boys could be adopted as legal heirs, in God’s family all children, both male and female are adopted in this way.

Adoption is the highest privilege that the gospel offers: higher even than justification…In adoption, God takes us into his family and fellowship. He establishes us as his children and heirs. Closeness, affection and generosity are at the heart of the relationship. The traitor is forgiven, brought in for supper, and given the family name. To be right with God the Judge is a great thing, but to be loved and cared for by God the Father is greater.

J. I. Packer, Knowing God, 206-207

As in the ancient Greko-Roman world, contemporary judicial laws treat the documented adopted children as rightful legal heir as biological children. In God’s view, we all are legal children adopted through His Son Jesus. The only thing we have to do is to believe that He loves us. He sees us and smiles with delight. As Richard Sibbes says, “What a comfort is this, that seeing God’s love rests on Christ, as well pleased in him, we may gather that he is as well pleased with us, if we be in Christ!”

God as a Father?

If I ask someone a question, what you think of a father? Answers going to be not similar to everyone. It could be a loving, abusive, heartbreaking experience while answering. In other words, some may have a good experience with their earthly/biological father, and others may hold the opposite. In many cases, some never had a father in their life. We always carry personal baggage while thinking about God the Father. We may assume, He could be like our earthly father or like a father we never had. But throughout all eternity God is Father, and eternally He has a Son. I think it is not fair to understand and define the infinite Father with finite earthly fathers. The idea of starting from scratch to understand the heavenly Father is probably the best way.

Suggested Practical Steps

The first step is, believe that God loves us. The whole plan of salvation has its goal to adopt us as His beloved child. God sent his Son, condemned his Son, and abandoned his Son on the cross so that we would come close to Him as his child. It doesn’t matter you never had a father, or he was a father you wished didn’t exist, but now you have a Father who loves you wholeheartedly as he does in Christ.

The next and final step is to enjoy Him through communion or prayer. Look around and see His creations and handiworks. The trees, rivers, lakes, seas, oceans, hills, mountains, birds, animals, sky, clouds, rain, sun, moon, and so on. The earth is filled with his artworks, in other words, we living in and surrounded by His touch works. It reminds us of His grace and mercy, He is a caring and loving father. Think about Him while you work, walk, run, cook, eat, dream… When we do this we are filled with gratitude, we stop complaining. Our hearts are filled with joy while we enjoy God our Father.

Even today in the American Jewish community, an Orthodox rabbi will not perform a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew.[1] Moreover, he will not conduct the wedding ceremony unless the non-Jewish person was converted in accordance with Halakhah, the Jewish law.[2] In Ruth’s book, the storyteller does not give any hint regarding the conversions of Orpah and Naomi into Judaism before their marriage to Naomi’s sons. After a certain point, unlike Orpah, Ruth departs with Naomi even after Naomi’s three repeating appeals. More importantly, Naomi gave up her resistance after she received the confession from Ruth (1:16-17). Does Ruth’s statement toward Naomi is a sign of her conversion into Israel’s faith? In this essay, we will investigate this question by using the plot and the characters used by the storyteller in the first chapter of Ruth’s Book, its wider context within a book and its canonical context.

SETTING UP THE PLATFORM (1:1-5)

The narrator sets a stage on Ruth 1:1-5, introduces six of the characters and building a base for the story to unwrap.[3] The first verse informs us the events took place at the time of Judges (1:1). It is a time of political uncertainty, religious apostasy, economic catastrophe, lawlessness and anarchy.[4]

The story opens with a journey from Bethlehem to Moab. A man named Elimelech, his wife Naomi, and his two sons were Mahlon and Chilion were the migrants. On the one hand, Elimelech is from a subgroup of the tribe of Judah from Bethlehem (meaning ‘House of Bread’) became a place of famine.[5] On the other hand, Moabites are the children of “an incestuous union between the Lot and his daughters (Genesis 19:30-38)” and they were prohibited forever to take part in the assembly of Yahweh (Deuteronomy 23:3-4).[6]

Elimelech (meaning ‘My God Is King’) died in Moab after some time of their arrival (1:3).[7] His sons Mahlon and Chilion died too after their ten years of childless married life with Moabite women Orpah and Ruth respectively (1:5). Naomi and her daughters-in-law in a near-demise situation and no men in the family leave them with no identity.[8]

RETURNING TO JUDAH (1:6-18)

Now, the story takes the opposite direction even in geographically. This section starts that Naomi heard about the current situation in Israel of Yahweh provided food to the people (1:6). She decided to go back to Bethlehem.

In the first negotiation, verses 8-10, with a farewell prayer, Naomi dismisses her daughters-in-law to go back to their fathers.[9] But both Orpah and Ruth resisted their mother-in-law’s attempt to send them away. The journey of the trio continues.

In the second dialogue (1:11-14), Naomi asks “Have I yet sons in my womb that they may become your husbands?” (1:11). She here refers explicitly to the practice of yibum, a levirate marriage.[10] For instance, the story of Tamar in Genesis 38.[11] Orpah (meaning “neck” or “fawn”) looked at her situation and made the necessary decisions by using exactly the same logic that Naomi had followed earlier: the fields of Moab looked far greener than the land of Israel.[12] With that simple, sensible choice she marched off, out of the pages of the Bible, however, Ruth clung to her decision.[13]

Naomi makes one last attempt to send Ruth away using Orpah as an example (1:15). She responded as “Do not urge me to leave you or to return from following you. For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there will I be buried. May the Lord do so to me and more also if anything but death parts me from you.” (1:16-17)

Many modern-day scholars question whether or not verses 16-17 represents the conversion process of Ruth into Israel’s faith.[14] There was no question about Ruth as a proselyte (a new convert; especially a gentile converted to Judaism) within Rabbinic tradition.[15] The prototypical framework for the conversion or would-be proselyte is provided in the first chapter of Ruth with the help of Rabbinic interpretation.[16]

When Ruth and Orpah declare that they will go back with Naomi to her home country, they state that their purpose is to become followers of her God.[17] And they said to her, “No, we will not return to our people and our god, but rather we will return with you to your people to become proselytes.” (TgRuth 1:10)[18]

Ruth’s declaration “Do not urge me to leave you or to return from following you” is interpreted as follows, “Do not entreat me’ – She said to her: do not sin against me, do not turn your misfortunes (from the verb paga , translated here as ‘entreat’) away from me … I am fully resolved to convert, but better at your hands than at those of another. When Naomi heard this she began to set in order before her the laws of conversion.” (Ruth Rabbah 2:22)[19]

Traditionally, how to receive a potential convert with reluctance was recorded in Ruth Rabbah.[20] In the first chapter of Ruth, Naomi practices three times to send away her daughters-in-law using the same Hebrew term ‘shovnah’, turn back.[21] “Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani in the name of Rabbi Yudan son of rabbi Hanina [said]: In three places it is written here, ‘shovnah, shovnah, shovnah’, ‘turn back, turn back, turn back’ corresponding to the three times they push the potential convert away. But if he persists more than this they accept him.” (Ruth Rabbah 2:16)[22]

Murray forces, “Your people shall be my people, and your God my God” gets a central place among Ruth’s statement.[23] Additionally, by taking an oath by Yahweh, reveals her as a true convert of the God of Israel.[24] Since it contrasts with the description given to Orpah in verse 15, “Your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and to her gods.” Admittedly, the conversion process represented by following the order of placing ‘people’ first, and only then succeeded by ‘God’.[25] The commitment first made toward national community, naturalisation, and only then, as an expected result, religious commitment.[26]

Ruth’s concluding vow varies from the usual formula as she uses the divine name (Yahweh) rather than the more general term (God) normally used in vows.[27] This emphasizes that it is indeed Yahweh, the God of Israel, in whom she trusts.[28] Thus, the narrator makes a point of saying that Naomi became speechless when she notices the resolution of her daughter-in-law to go with her.[29] As Tribe discerns, “From a cultural perspective, Ruth has chosen death over life. She has disavowed the solidarity of family; she has abandoned national identity; and she has renounced religious affiliation. In the entire epic of Israel, only Abraham matches this radically, but then he had a call from God (Genesis 12:1-5).”[30]

INTERIM CONCLUSION

To sum up, according to Rabbinic traditions, original receivers and even after the time of Jesus, Ruth’s confession was seen as a process of conversion into Israel’s faith. Moreover, Naomi’s compelling act also was a sign of proselyte initiation with her daughters-in-law. Overall, Ruth passed the test by resisting Naomi’s three repeating persuasions but Orpah chose not to do, made a decision which she felt was sensible to her.

IMMEDIATE LITERARY CONTEXT AND THE CONTEXT OF THE BOOK

The title of the Book of Ruth gives a hint that Ruth is a central figure of this book. However, this argument alone does not answer the question the confession of Ruth to Naomi is a sign of real conversion into Judaism. Soon, in chapter two, the narrator introduces a character, Boaz.

When the Targumist enlarges Ruth’s humble biblical image, it shows her developing knowledge of Torah.[31] First, Ruth is recognising that her state as Moabite ought to make her particularly disgusting, at the same time, she is not just questioning his generosity and the recognition of her foreignness(2:10).[32] She is remembering the verse Deut. 23:4, “No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord.” The Targum of Ruth addresses this concern by Boaz’s reply to Ruth in 2:11-12:

Boaz replied and said to her, “It has surely been told to me concerning the word of the sages that, when the Lord decreed concerning them, he did not decree against any but the men… because you have supported your mother-in-law after your husband died and you forsook your god and your people [and your father and mother] and the land of your birth and went to become a proselyte and to dwell among a people who were not known to you before. May the Lord repay you a good payment in this world for your good deeds, and may your reward be perfect in the next world from before the Lord, the God of Israel, to whom you have come to become a proselyte and to shelter under the shadow of his glorious Shekinah…” (TgRuth 2:11-12)

According to Mosaic Law, if a man dies without children, his brother should marry his widow (Deut. 25:5-10). This type of marriage is called levirate marriage (from the Latin levir, which means husband’s brother).[33] Another practice in Israel was land cannot be sold permanently as it belongs to the Lord (Lev. 25:23).[34] But in some cases, the poor can sell their property, it can be redeemed by his uncle or a cousin or other blood relative acting as a goel (meaning “kinsmen-redeemer” or “guardian redeemer”).[35]

Naomi plans these two practices on Ruth with Boaz. When Ruth approaches Boaz to be redeemed (Ruth 3:10), he accepted it and arranged redemption in the next day morning (Ruth 4:12). Followed by it, Boaz marries Ruth.

The first chapter ends with Naomi calling herself “empty” and “bitter.” But the conclusion of Ruth’s Book turned out to be the reversal of its introduction, showing how the Lord redeemed Naomi’s life through Ruth’s love (Ruth 4:15).[36] The childless widow Naomi became the grandmother of Obed (Ruth’s son).[37] Nevertheless, Ruth is the great-grandmother of King David, a descendant of Obed.

CONTEXT OF THE CANON

Similar to Ruth’s story, in verses Genesis 38:6-6, Judah attempted a levirate marriage on Tamar his daughter-in-law. Tamar and Ruth were childless widows.[38] Though no information on Tamar’s background is provided, it is likely that she was a Canaanite.[39] The Book of Ruth clearly shows, Yahweh chooses a foreign woman Ruth as an ancestress for David (Ruth 4:22) although it contradicts with “No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord. (Deut. 23:4)”[40]

Similar to Ruth, Rahab in Joshua 2:9-11, confesses her faith in Yahweh.  She briefly summarised Israel’s history from the oppressive bondage of Egyptians to their victory over kings and nations that threatened them. Rahab exalted God, confessing that “the LORD your God is God in heaven above and on the earth below.” (Joshua 2:11) Rahab offered to help the Israelites and remained faithful to her task despite the fact she was risking her life (Joshua 2:3). She is the mother of Boaz, Ruth’s husband.[41]

Among gospel writers, Matthew’s genealogy differs from Luke’s genealogy as it includes four women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah. In Jewish culture, it is unusual to include women in the genealogy, especially, three of these women are gentiles not even Jewish.[42] Bathsheba’s first husband was a Hittite, thus not Jewish (2 Samuel 11:3).

In both Greek and Jewish culture, a woman had no legal rights.[43] She could not inherit property or give testimony in a court of law.[44] She was completely under her husband’s power and was seen less as a person than as a thing.[45] Being not created as a slave, a gentile or a woman was part of a daily thanksgiving prayer for a Jewish man.[46] And yet there are four women in Jesus’ genealogy. Matthew might have chosen them precisely because their presence in Jesus’ ancestral line is consistent with the understanding that Jesus was the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham that people from all nations would be blessed through him and his descendants.[47]

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, indeed Ruth’s confession to Naomi was a confession of faith in Yahweh. Her confession was understood in its original context as a symbolism of conversion. Moreover, Boaz confirms Ruth as a proselyte in Judah, and he redeems and marries her as per tradition in a wider setting. Finally, Ruth’s name placed among the other three women in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus professes the promise of universal blessing made to Abraham. Through Ruth, the line of Abraham and Lot came together.

[1] Steven Riskin, “CONVERSION IN JEWISH LAW,” Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought 14, no. 2 (1973): 29–42.

[2] Riskin.

[3] Carolyn Pressler, Joshua, Judges and Ruth (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 265.

[4] Chris Wright and Ajith Fernando, South Asia Bible Commentary, ed. Brian Wintle et al. (Rajasthan etc.: Open Door Publications Pvt Ltd., 2015), 332.

[5] Jeremy Schipper and John J. Collins, Ruth: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, First Edition edition (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2016), 97.

[6] Pressler, Joshua, Judges and Ruth, 266.

[7] Debra Reid, Ruth and Esther: Put Your Life in the Lord’s Hands (Leicester: Crossway Books, 2000), 34.

[8] Wright and Fernando, South Asia Bible Commentary, 333.

[9] Pressler, Joshua, Judges and Ruth, 269.

[10] “Levirate marriage” – When a husband dies, leaving no male offspring, one of his brothers is obliged to marry the widow and beget children with her, serving as a kind of proxy for his deceased brother. See, Robert Alter, trans., Strong As Death Is Love: The Song of Songs, Ruth, Esther, Jonah, and Daniel, A Translation with Commentary, 1 edition (W. W. Norton & Company, 2016), 72.

[11] Alter, 72.

[12] Iain M. Duguid, Esther & Ruth: Reformed Expository Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2005), 149.

[13] Duguid, 150.

[14] Christian M M Brady, “The Conversion of Ruth in Targum Ruth,” The Review of Rabbinic Judaism 16, no. 2 (2013): 133–46.

[15] Brady, 133–46.

[16] Brady, 133–46.

[17] Brady, 133–46.

[18] “TARGUM” – Early translation of the Bible into Aramaic, also include a large amount of biblical commentary. See, Chad Brand, Eric Mitchell, and Holman Reference Editorial Staff, eds., Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Revised, Revised and Expanded edition (Holman Reference, 2015), 1531.

[19] “Ruth Rabbah” – is an exegetical Midrash which expounds the Book of Ruth chapter by chapter, verse by verse, and, sometimes, word by word. See, “Ruth Rabbah,” accessed June 15, 2019, https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ruth-rabbah.

[20] Jonathan Magonet, “RABBINIC READINGS OF RUTH,” European Judaism: A Journal for the New Europe 40, no. 2 (2007): 150–57.

[21] Magonet, 151.

[22] Magonet, 151.

[23] Murray D.Gow, The Book of Ruth (Leicester: Apollos, 1992), 37.

[24] D.Gow, 37.

[25] Magonet, “RABBINIC READINGS OF RUTH,” 152.

[26] Magonet, 152.

[27] D.Gow, The Book of Ruth, 38.

[28] D.Gow, 38.

[29] D.Gow, 38.

[30] Phyllis Trible, God and Rhetoric of Sexuality, 2d ptg. edition (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 173.

[31] Brady, “The Conversion of Ruth in Targum Ruth,” 140.

[32] Brady, 140.

[33] Wright and Fernando, South Asia Bible Commentary, 335.

[34] Wright and Fernando, 335.

[35] ESV Bibles by Crossway, ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2008), 482.

[36] Crossway, 483.

[37] Crossway, 483.

[38] Wright and Fernando, South Asia Bible Commentary, 1223.

[39] Wright and Fernando, 1223.

[40] Wright and Fernando, 1223.

[41] Wright and Fernando, 338.

[42] Wright and Fernando, 1223.

[43] Crossway, ESV Study Bible, 721.

[44] Crossway, ESV Study Bible, 722.

[45] Crossway, 722.

[46] Crossway, 722.

[47] Wright and Fernando, South Asia Bible Commentary, 1224.

HISTORY

John Calvin (1509-1564 CE) and Jacobus Arminius were hardly contemporaries since Arminius was born just four years before the death of Calvin. Though he showed great admiration for the Genevan Reformer he never met, Arminius was the best-known rival of Calvinism in his day in Holland. Arminius studied theology under Calvin’s successor Theodore Beza (1519-1605 CE) in Geneva. Later he fell into a dispute with his fellow theology professor Franciscus Gomarus (1563-1641 CE) at the Reformed University of Leiden as he believed in free will and human cooperation with God’s grace despite believing in the unconditional election for salvation.

In 1610, just one year after Arminius’s death, his followers formed five articles of faith and presented to the State of Holland in the form of “Remonstrance” (i.e., protest). The Arminians opposed the doctrinal views of divine sovereignty, human inability, unconditional election or predestination, particular redemption, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints which were supported by Calvin’s theology. Roger Nicole summarises the five doctrines included in the Remonstrance as follows:

1. God elects or reproves on the basis of foreseen faith or unbelief. 2. Christ died for all men and for every man, although only believers are saved. 3. Man is so depraved that divine grace is necessary unto faith or any good deed, 4. This grace may be resisted. 5. Whether all who are truly regenerate will certainly persevere in the faith is a point which needs further investigation.

The Synod of Dort discarded Arminianism and reaffirmed the Calvinistic position in the five doctrines in 1619, which is known as ‘the five points of Calvinism.’ The title Calvinism was obtained from the great French Reformer, John Calvin, who had accomplished so much in explaining and supporting these views. The five points are “1. Total depravity (Humanity’s radical corruption) 2. Unconditional election (God’s sovereign choice) 3. Limited atonement (Christ’s purposeful atonement) 4. Irresistible grace (The Sprit’s effective call) 5. Perseverance of the saints (God’s preservation of the saints).” This doctrine is known as TULIP a familiar five-point acrostic and also known as ‘The Five Points of Reformed Theology.’

CALVINIST VIEW

Unconditional Election

Calvinists believe in the unconditional election. Predestination or a divine election is a part of foreordination. Palmer defines “Foreordination means God’s sovereign plan, whereby He decides all that is to happen in the entire universe. Nothing in this world happens by chance. God is in the back of everything. He decides and causes all things to happen that do happen.” He has foreordained everything “after the counsel of His will” (Eph. 1.11).

Predestination formed of two elements: election and reprobation. Election concerns those who go to heaven, and reprobation concerns those who go to hell. Moreover, J.I.Packer defines the biblical doctrine of election is that “before Creation God selected out of the human race, foreseen as fallen, those whom he would redeem, bring to faith, justify, and glorify in Jesus Christ.” Thus, Calvinist’s view on predestination called as unconditional election, because God’s election not conditioned upon anything that God sees in us that makes us worthy.

Biblical Basis

Many verses in the New Testament appear to insist very clearly that God foreordained beforehand those who would be saved. For instance, when Paul and Barnabas started to preach to the Gentiles in Antioch, Luke reports, “And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48). It is important that Luke states the case of election almost in passing. In Romans 8:28-30, we read:

We know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

In Rom. 9:11-13, Paul says that God chose Jacob and not Esau, it was not because of anything that Jacob or Esau had done, but simply “in order that God’s purpose of election might continue.” It shows that God’s choice was not based on foreknowledge as Paul writes that God made His choice known to Rebecca before her twins were born and before they had done anything good or bad. To clinch the sovereignty of this choice, God simply pronounces, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” Regarding Israel, Paul indicates two distinct groups, those who were “the elect” obtained the salvation that they sought, while those who were not the elect simply “were hardened.” Also, Paul explicitly talks about God’s sovereign choice of believers before the foundation of the world in Eph. 1:4-6.

Paul writes to the Thessalonians, “For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction” (1 Thess. 1:4-5).  Paul asserts that the fact that Thessalonians believed the gospel when he preached it (“for our gospel came to you…in power…and with full conviction”) is the reason he knows that God had chosen them. As soon as they came to faith Paul concluded that long-ago God has chosen them, and therefore they had believed when he preached.

ARMINIAN VIEW

Conditional Election

Arminians take the side of the conditional election. Palmer hints “A conditional election is an election that is conditioned on something in the person being elected.” For instance, political elections are conditional elections as the voter’s decision is conditioned by something that the candidate is or has assured. Clark Pinnock claims that “God desires all to be saved and cannot be thought of any longer as selecting some to be saved and placing the others under wrath and reprobation, as in high Calvinism. One possibility that presented itself was to think of election as being based on the foreknowledge of God. (Rom. 8:29; 1 Peter 1:2)”

God foresees who will believe in Christ, and then on the basis of that foreknowledge, God decides to elect the believers to heaven. Also, unregenerate man has enough goodness in him so that if the Holy Spirit assists him he will want to choose Jesus. Man chooses God and then God Chooses man, moreover, God’s choice conditioned upon man’s choice. Arminius in his own words:

To these succeeds the fourth decree, by which God decreed to save and damn certain particular persons. This decree has its foundation in the foreknowledge of God, by which he knew from eternity those individuals who would, through his preventing grace, believe, and through his subsequent grace would persevere, according to the before-described administration of those means which are suitable and proper for conversion and faith; and by which foreknowledge, he likewise knew those who would not believe and persevere.

Biblical Basis

Clark Pinnock states that Rom. 8:29-30 does not express of predestination to salvation, but rather to a specific privilege that of being reconciled to Jesus Christ: “There is no predestination to salvation or damnation in the Bible. There is only predestination for those who are already children of God with respect to certain privileges out ahead of them.” In addition, God’s plan for the world and for us does not overpower but rather supports and includes the spontaneity of vital human decisions. We are co-workers with God, associating with him in whatever in the future, which is not stored up in a heavenly videotape but is the realm of chances, many of which have yet to be determined and actualized. Peter provides a fine example when he describes the delay of Christ’s return as being due to God’s desire to witness more sinners saved since God actually postponing the near return of Christ for their sakes (2 Peter 3:9).

Arminius presented his developing views on human free will and predestination in a series of sermons on Romans 7 and 9. He argued that Isaac and Ishmael, and Jacob and Esau, are not represented as individual persons by Paul in Romans 9, but as typological characters. God does not predestine individuals, but rather classes of persons, moreover, those who will believe the gospel and those who will not. It is easy to reconcile the Arminian view of God with a number of important biblical themes, including affirmation of God’s desire to save all people (e.g., 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9), numerous calls to repentance (e.g., Ezek. 33:11; Matt. 3:2; Acts 2:38; 17:30), warning about falling away (e.g., 1 Cor. 10:12; Heb. 6:4-6; 2 Peter 2:20-21), and the general emphasis on human responsibility. Finally, Arminian thought stresses God’s respect for the integrity of creaturely freedom and God’s responsiveness and sensitivity to creaturely experiences.

SIMILARITIES

Both Calvinists and Arminians share a common ground in many doctrines. Arminius believed in total depravity that every person born into this world except Jesus Christ is completely helpless to do anything spiritually good or even to exercise goodwill toward God apart from God’s prevenient grace. They believe in resistible prevenient grace but Calvin believed in irresistible grace. For Arminius, people do not have ‘free will’ with regard to salvation, but the Holy Spirit gives them a gift of ‘freed will’ through prevenient grace.

Remonstrants (Arminians) also believed in God’s sovereignty, but they rejected any account of divine providence that would make God the cause of sin or evil. They also believed in predestination but defined as a God’s foreknowledge of which persons would respond to the gospel faith. Most importantly, both belief in the Gospel, Triune God and salvation by faith alone through grace alone in Jesus Christ.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

In South Asia, many non-Christians do not know the difference between a Protestant and a Catholic and they consider both are same, however, as we know, it is different. When the society outside the Church unites us one, the community in the Church do not agree. There is four hundred years long-standing debate going between the Calvinists and the Arminians. Most importantly, the doctrine of election involves mystery and seldom provokes a dispute. Even the greatest minds in the history of the church struggled about predestination. A brief glance at church history tells that the debate over predestination is not between liberals and conservatives or between believers and unbelievers. it is a debate among believers. For example, Augustine vs Pelagius, Thomas Aquinas vs Jacob Arminius, Martin Luther vs Philip Melanchthon, John Calvin vs John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards vs Charles Finney.

Eighteenth-century revivalist and founder of Methodism John Wesley (1703-1791 CE) was a passionate Arminian. His friend and fellow Great Awakening revivalist George Whitefield (1714-1770 CE) was an equally passionate Calvinist. Nevertheless, they had a falling out over their theological differences, they reconciled, and Wesley preached a laudatory sermon at Whitefield’s funeral. The Wesleys and Whitefield had covered their differences for the sake of revival harmony. We have to put aside our differences over predestination and free will, and present a united front to the watching world. When we look back at the church history, theological differences never going to end. They are always present among us. Most importantly, Palmer stresses, “Salvation does not depend on our having a theologian’s knowledge. It depends only on whether or not we truly put our trust in Jesus Christ to save us from our sins.” So, both Arminians and Calvinists who repent their sins and turn to Christ for salvation are going to heaven. Sometimes, it is not making sense to study the mysterious infinite God with our finite mind. However, the most important thing is our responsibility for evangelism and faithfulness towards our saviour.

WHY I AM A CALVINIST?

Why am I a Christian? Why did God decide to elect me? The answer for the Calvinists is not because of anything good in us, simply because He decided to love us, there is no more ultimate cause than that. I will take Grudem’s words, “Calvinism, especially the doctrine of election humbles us before God to think in this way. It makes us realise that we have no claim on God’s grace whatsoever. Our salvation is totally due to grace alone. our only appropriate response is to give God eternal praise.” Most importantly, the Calvinist knows that all of his salvation depends on God and not himself. Arminians hold to man’s freedom and restrict God’s sovereignty. There is a danger in Arminianism, it might lead to legalism and try to earn favour from God through works and rituals rather relying upon God’s sovereign grace, most importantly, my personal journey from Arminianism to Calvinism.

CONCLUSION

Calvinists believe in the unconditional election which teaches divine sovereignty by pointing out that God’s selection of a man for eternal life is not based on anything in a man. But, Arminians believe in the conditional election which teaches His choice is conditioned by His foreknowing who would cooperate with Him and accept the sacrifice of Christ. Both have a long-standing debate in history, belief in the gospel and salvation by faith alone through grace alone. Personally, I am convinced by Calvinism which is totally relying on God’s divine sovereignty.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boer, William den. “‘Cum Delectu’: Jacob Arminius’s (1559—1609) Praise for and Critique of Calvin and His Theology.” Church History and Religious Culture 91, no. 1/2 (2011): 73–86.

Cline, S M. “Calvinism and Arminianism Compared.” Review & Expositor 39, no. 2 (April 1942): 166–73.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. First Edition edition. Leicester: IVP, 1994.

Harrison, Everett F., Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Carl F. H. Henry. Baker’s Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Pub Group, 1987.

J.I.Packer. Concise Theology. Reissue edition. Nottingham: ivp, 2011.

Keefer, Luke L. “Characteristics of Wesley’s Arminianism.” Wesleyan Theological Journal 22, no. 1 (1987): 88–100.

Olson, Roger E. God in Dispute: “Conversations” among Great Christian Thinkers. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2009.

Palmer, Edwin H., and Michael Horton. The Five Points of Calvinism: A Study Guide. 3 edition. Grand Rapids, Minn: Baker Books, 2010.

Pinnock, Clark H., ed. Grace Unlimited. Eugene, Or.: Wipf & Stock Pub, 1999.

———. The Grace of God, the Will of Men. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 1989.

Sproul, R. C. Chosen by God. Carol Stream, Ill.: Tyndale Momentum, 1994.

———. What Is Reformed Theology?: Understanding the Basics. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2005.

Steele, David N., Curtis C. Thomas, and S. Lance Quinn. The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented. Updated and Expanded edition. Phillipsburg, N.J: P & R Publishing, 2004.

Williams, Michael D. “The Five Points of Arminianism.” Presbyterion 30, no. 1 (2004): 11–36.

WHY CHRISTIANS CONSIDER THE REVELATION OF GOD IS GOOD NEWS

Firstly, we are creatures. “In the beginning, God created…man in his own image…male and female he created them” (Gen 1:1, 27). These words of the Bible show the difference between God and Human. God’s knowledge includes our self-knowledge (Ps. 139:2f.) since He is the creator and Lord of humankind, however, our self-knowledge does not include God’s self-knowledge. Secondly, we cannot attain a true and satisfactory knowledge of God using our intellectual and moral perception since the fall has affected every aspect of our being. Therefore, revelation is necessary to know God. In the words of John Stott, “Since He is all-holy God, while we are fallen, sinful and under his just judgement, there is a chasm between him and us which we from our side could never bridge. We could never know him (unless he should take the initiative to make himself known).”

Generally, theologians classify revelation into two main forms: ‘general’ and ‘special.’ ‘General revelation’ is available to all people everywhere, it also called ‘natural’ because it is performed through nature and conscience.[8] Paul states that this revelation accessible from the ‘creation of the world’ (Romans 1:20). Though general revelation disclosed something of His nature, not sufficient to know God fully. But special revelation surpasses general revelation in two forms. The incarnation of Jesus Christ is the supreme self-disclosure of God and the Holy Scripture is another form of special revelation. However, these forms cannot be separated. Milne states, “Christ, the incarnate Word, is known through the written Word of God, the Bible. Conversely, the written Word cannot be separated from the incarnate Word.” Therefore, God’s revelation is clearly good news to Christians, as J.I. Packer depicts:

Revelation is our personal Creator and Upholder addressing us in order to make friends with us. We do not find Him; rather, He finds us. He sees us as rebels against Him, with our minds blinded and our characters twisted by sin, actively dishonouring Him by stifling His truth and serving false gods. But His Word addressed to us in Christ, though it begins as bad news, with a disclosure to us of the judgement under which we stand, is essentially good news; for it is a word of pardon and peace, a message of reconciliation by the death of Jesus and of ‘a way back to God from the dark path of sin.’

– J. I. Packer, God Has Spoken, P60-61.

WHY GOD’S SELF-DISCLOSURE IN JESUS CHRIST IS GOOD NEWS TO HINDUS?

Hindu teaching has been progressively developed from the Hindu Scriptures and categorised into two kinds of inspiration. The four Vedas (Rig, Sama, Yajur, Atharva) embody the highest form of revelation in Hinduism, also known as sruti. Other sacred texts such as Sutras, the Law Books, the Puranas and Bhagavad Gita form a second-tier body of texts. Salvation in Hinduism is principally interceded through works, partially ethical, but mainly sacrificial. That is, merit is accomplished through the offering of sacrifices and is in proportion to their nature and costliness. For instance, devotees of a Tamil God Murugan perform many physical rituals on a Thaipusam festival every year. Such sacraments include carrying a kavadi (two curved pieces of wood or steel attached to a cross structure which can weigh up to 30 kg) and piercing the skin, tongue or cheeks with vel (metal pin) skewers, most importantly, they walk in a barefoot from long distances. However, as Packer states that “The Bible reveals non-Christian religion to be as we said, a poignant kind of tragedy in which salvation is sought to be where salvation is not to be found” and here it is Hinduism.

CONCLUSION

To sum up, the divine self-disclosure act of God in Jesus Christ is indeed good news to Christians since God finished all the work in the cross through His Son. And He revealed Himself to mankind through His Son and Scriptures. At the same time, the good news to Christians also good news to Hindus since Hindu doctrine tells them to discover God by their own effort and gives no proof of salvation. I think the self-disclosure initiation from God to reveal Himself to mankind surpasses the self-effort act of humanity to know God by discovery.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“By 2050, India to Have World’s Largest Populations of Hindus and Muslims.” Pew Research Center (blog). Accessed November 8, 2018. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/21/by-2050-india-to-have-worlds-largest-populations-of-hindus-and-muslims/.

“India Population (2018) – Worldometers.” Accessed November 8, 2018. http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/india-population/.

Milne, Bruce. Know the Truth. First Edition edition. IVP India, 2017.

Packer, J. I. God Has Spoken. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2000.

Sproul, R. C. Essential Truths of the Christian Faith. London: Tyndale Momentum, 1998.

Stillwell, J R. “The Doctrine of Salvation in Non-Christain Religions as Illustrated by Hinduism.” Review & Expositor 11, no. 3 (July 1914): 351–73.

Stott, John. Evangelical Truth: A Personal Plea for Unity, Integrity & Faithfulness. Revised edition. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2005.

Tennent, Timothy C. Theology in the Context of World Christianity: How the Global Church Is Influencing the Way We Think about and Discuss Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2007.

“World Population Clock: 7.7 Billion People (2018) – Worldometers.” Accessed November 8, 2018. http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/.

Even though being part of the Old Testament canon, the term ‘God’ is not mentioned anywhere in the book of Esther, but numerous hints reflect His presence. How a leadership principle from Esther can be practised by contemporary Indian Christian leaders?

Embrace being or becoming vulnerable

“Being faithful is being or becoming vulnerable” – is one of the sermon sub-topics of Dr Jayakumar Christian’s chapel message on Friday, January 11, 2019. This title really captivated our mind, as a result, we do not want to use another tagline for a leadership principle. A well-known scholar Henri Nouwen states, “I am deeply convinced that the Christian leader of the future is called to be completely irrelevant and to stand in this world with nothing to offer but his or her own vulnerable self.” There is no sense of vulnerability phase found when an ordinary Jewish girl Esther became the replacement of Queen Vashti by winning a “beauty contest.” But, the joy and celebration of Queen Esther’s household did not last long when her cousin and guardian Mordecai heard the plot against the Jews by Haman, a cliffhanging moment.

Esther was hesitant at first to act when she heard the plan of Haman from Mordecai to erase the Jewish people from the face of the earth. However, she agreed to work with Mordecai (Est. 4:12–14) though she had a choice: to be used or not. Soon after, Esther calls for a fast and follows it not taking food and water for three days and approach the King (Est. 4:16). If someone approaches the king without being sent for, the most likely outcome is their death. Esther may be a queen, but she has no more privileges than anyone else in the royal court at Susa, cannot approach the king without being summoned. And for a whole month, the king hasn’t given her a passing thought. The king loved Esther above all other women (Est. 2:17), at the same time, how he will react to her entry to the throne room uninvited?  She is now coming with no strength, but with profound weakness after three days of fasting, most importantly, she embraces the vulnerability by saying, “If I perish, I perish.” (Est. 4:16). Moreover, she made herself vulnerable rather than to fight power with power.

How an Indian Christian leader can practise being vulnerable?

Jewish were the minority community in the Persian Empire of Esther’s time and Indian Christians are the minority population in India, which is not even three per cent. Esther’s vulnerability to power and death enabled her to show great initiative and courage. Most importantly, God preserved “the offspring of Abraham for His purpose of bringing blessing to the whole world through them.” According to ‘Open Doors’, India ranks eleventh in the world on Persecution against Christians, especially, the rank increased in the last three years due to various powerful Hindutva parties such as Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Shiv Sena and Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). Instead of choosing to fight power with power, take the way of the cross, stand by our convictions, and make ourselves vulnerable. That means vulnerable to persecution, ridicule and unpleasant situations. God will put us into a situation wherever he wants us to be to carry His task forward. The situation may vary: good or bad, pleasant or unpleasant, abundance or poverty, healthy or unhealthy and so on. And it is our responsibility to do the task by embracing the vulnerability, and the book of Esther illustrates “the fact that divine providence does not negate the responsibility of the people to act with courage and resolve when circumstances require it.”

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adeney, Miriam. “Esther across Cultures: Indigenous Leadership Roles for Women.” Missiology 15, no. 3 (July 1987): 323–37.

“Bible Gateway Passage: Esther 4:14 – New International Version.” Bible Gateway. Accessed January 10, 2019. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Esther+4%3A14&version=NIV.

“Christian Persecution in India.” Open Doors USA (blog). Accessed January 11, 2019. https://www.opendoorsusa.org/christian-persecution/world-watch-list/india/.

Crossway, ESV Bibles by. ESV Study Bible. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2008.

Cunningham, Loren, and Joel Hamilton David. Why Not Women ? Seattle: YWAM, 2000.

Duguid, Iain M. Esther & Ruth: Reformed Expository Commentary. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2005.

Green, Alexander. “POWER, DECEPTION, AND COMEDY: THE POLITICS OF EXILE IN THE BOOK OF ESTHER.” Jewish Political Studies Review 23, no. 1/2 (2011): 61–78.

Nouwen, Henri J M. In the Name of Jesus: Reflections on Christian Leadership. New York: Crossroad, 1989.

Peters, Janelle. “Rahab, Esther, and Judith as Models for Church Leadership in 1 Clement.” Journal of Early Christian History 5, no. 2 (2015): 94–110.

Porter, Jeanne. Leading Lessons: Insights on Leadership from Women of the Bible. Augsburg Books, 2005.

Reid, Debra. Ruth and Esther: Put Your Life in the Lord’s Hands. Leicester: Crossway Books, 2000.